A Study of Differences in Compulsory Courses Offering Medicine Humanization and Medical Communication in Polish Medical Schools: Content Analysis of Secondary Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical humanity is an essential element of medical education, and the respective courses are introduced to the curricula of medical schools worldwide. However, significant differences in this type of medical education were identified in Italy, Spain, and the UK. In Poland, this issue was not yet analyzed. The classes offered on a compulsory and not elective basis secure the uniform skills of future physicians. Therefore, we were prompted to ask a question: do Polish medical students receive equal compulsory education in medical humanities? To answer that question, we performed a content analysis of mandatory classes' frequency, types, and content on medical humanization and communication in Polish medical schools. The study used publicly available information provided on the home pages of the universities to perform content and comparative analyses. Of 22 identified universities, 15 had publicly listed teaching programs, and nine had freely available syllabi. The names and types of courses varied from school to school. The number of hours the courses offered throughout medical education ranged from 15 to 216. In some medical schools, the classes were scheduled during the early, pre-clinical part of the study, whereas in other schools they were offered each year. The content of the courses always covered the topics of physician-patient communication but rarely offered protocols, such as the Calgary Cambridge guide. We conclude that the medical humanities represented by medical humanization and communication courses are included in the publicly available compulsory curriculum of most Polish medical schools. However, to secure equal education of future Polish physicians, there is a need to unify the medical humanities program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".